learn_speckit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'opens an interactive web page,' which is the primary side effect. However, it does not clarify whether this modifies any files, requires network access, or has other side effects. For a non-destructive tutorial tool, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and followed by the mechanism. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity—no parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations—the description provides all necessary context. It states what the tool does, how it does it, and the scope of content covered. The interaction with sibling tools is clear from the naming and purpose, making the description complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has a single placeholder parameter '_' with description '无需参数' (no parameters needed). Since the description does not address parameters, the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The tool effectively takes no parameters, so no additional context is required or provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: to quickly understand all Spec Kit commands and the development process. It specifies the action ('opens an interactive web page') and the resource (Spec Kit commands and best practices). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gather, configure, analyze, build, and preview, which are operational rather than educational.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: when needing a quick overview of the entire Spec Kit command set and workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clearly differentiated from the operational sibling tools. For a simple learning tool, this is sufficient context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.